The Instigator
tapostol
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Thaumaturgy
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Thaumaturgy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,193 times Debate No: 24211
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

tapostol

Pro

The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith. Plain and simple. It would be preferred that the Con actually believe that the Bible is necessary to the Christian faith.
Thaumaturgy

Con

I will accept the challenge. I would like to take this opportunity to define key terms:

Christianity: the monotheistic religion that derived from the idea that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in the Jewish tradition and the "Old Testament". Jesus is considered by Christians to be the Son of God but also the Savior of mankind who atones man to God through his sacrifice.

Bible: the normally accepted Old and New Testaments. While there are some books that not in all Christian sects' versions of the Bible, the common books will be considered for this debate without the requirement of apocrypha etc.

The teachings of Jesus are outlined in the New Testament of the Bible. The stories from the Synoptic Gospels as well as the letters and various pseudepigraphs of Paul and others in the New Testament outline the relationship between man and God and Jesus.

While additional concepts may have been added on by philosphers and subsequent councils to firmly establish the nature of Jesus these will only be utilized if they can be clearly shown to have a provenance in the Bible itself.

Debate Round No. 1
tapostol

Pro

I agree to the definitions of the terms.

My first point will be this: though the Bible is good, beneficial, and helpful, it is not necessary to the Christian faith and this is primarily exemplified in the 300 years before the New Testament was canonized. Although Paul and others quoted Scripture occasionally, it was always used to corroborate a point being made, not prove it. For instance, on the day of Pentecost (as recorded in Acts 2), when foreign languages were being spoken by the congregation, Paul quotes Scripture to corroborate the event as prophetic and Spirit-induced, rather than the result of drunkenness. But this quotation in no way proved that this specific event was Spirit-induced, but it supported the claim.

Paul's conversion experience in Acts 9 (and many others like it, including my own) is also a great example of this. In the account of his experience with the post-incarnate Christ, Scripture is never mentioned, but Paul instantaneously makes a decision of faith. This supports the point that the Bible, though it is good and useful, is not NECESSARY to faith. Jesus needed not to say "Paul believe in me AND the Scriptures," because Jesus is far greater than the Scriptures.

As a sub-point, the Holy Trinity is not, has never been, and never will be Father, Son, and Holy Bible. I have found that the modern church largely turns to the Bible more than the Holy Spirit Himself. I'll end with this quote from Bill Johnson: "It's difficult to expect the same fruit of the early church when we value a book they didn't have more than the Holy Spirit they did have."

Just to clarify and finalize, I am not saying the Bible should be thrown away. I am purporting that, though it is a potentially helpful tool, is not necessary to a genuine Christian faith.
Thaumaturgy

Con


I would like to thank Pro for a very cogent point about the necessity or lack thereof the Bible to Christian faith.


I will rebut this point in consideration of what “Christianity” is, per se. It is arguable whether early adherents of the faith considered themselves “Christian” or rather as devout Jews who had accepted the reality of Jesus as the Messiah.


The idea of the Messiah requires the history entailed in the Old Testament.


I will further argue that Paul’s Epistles actually help establish what is and what isn’t Christianity moreso than the synoptic gospels, all of which post-date Paul’s writing by a significant amount of time. Estimates are that Mark (the oldest of the Synoptic gospels) was probably written between 67and 70AD [1] whereas Paul was probably writing around the 40’s to 50’s AD [2]


Paul himself never meets the physical Jesus, but only visits some of the Apostles in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death (Acts 9:27 et seq) and later Paul has a disagreement with Peter (Gal 2:11) over various aspects of the role of Gentiles in the faith. Of course my primary question is: how could one who had never met Jesus disagree with one who was a Disciple? But the greater point is, arguably much of what we have as the basis of Christianity starts with Paul’s epistles. As such, his writings help establish to the various congregations he addressed, what it meant to be a Christian. Since this makes up a great deal of the faith and how it later started to develop it becomes quite important.


Christian soteriology, which fundamentally marks Christians as a separate faith is predicated on the idea that Jesus is The Way to the father (John 14:6) which is, again, a part of the Gospels.


Pro’s sub-point about the Holy Trinity is also quite appropriate to the debate. The Trinitarian view (Father Son and Holy Spirit) is, in no small way, predicated on the “Johannine Comma” (1 John 5:7-8) which does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts nor in the oldest Latin Vulgate, and indeed when Erasmus was writing the textus receptus he initially refused to include it in his translation, insisting that the Church provide him with evidence that it was an actual part of the earliest manuscripts.


This detail underscores the importance of the Trinitarian orthodoxy, but also shows the importance of its foundation in the text of the Bible (whether one believes that the document the Church provided for him was genuine or produced to calm the problems the lack of the comma produced for the orthodoxy).


Finally: the idea of Jesus, the concept of the man who was simultaneously all man and all God, whose sacrifice atoned man to God and the acceptance of him as savior rest firmly on the information going out in a codified manner. The first and basic of these codifications would, by definition, be the Bible.


Let us theorize that perhaps Christ never actually existed (no contemporary of Jesus writes about him) but that the faith was developed as an outcome of the general intellectual milieu of the middle east at the time. In fact there were a number of competing “messiahs” and a variety of religions pre-dating Christianity which so resemble the concepts of Christianity that one of the early Church Fathers, Justin Martyr in his “First Apology” (Chpt LVI) establishes the concept that these predecessor faiths were a form of diabolical mimicry, an “anticipation” that the savior was to arrive so the devil sent forth forces to make up false religions “anticipating” the true faith thereby making it look like “marvelous tales”.


It becomes necessary to have some form of basis for the dogma.


Has it been shown, apart from the authors of the books of the New Testament, that people have come to the understanding of Christian soteriology’s subtle nuances?


SOURCES


1. http://bible.org...


2. http://www.religioustolerance.org...


Debate Round No. 2
tapostol

Pro

I thought we were in agreement on what Christianity is. Simply put, the origin of the word "Christian" means "little Christ" or "like Christ". If there is any dispute about who early believers thought they were, etymology easily answers this in ancient Greek. The believers actually were not the first to call themselves Christians, but were given the name as a means of ridicule by non-believers. Humorously I see it, the believers took it as a compliment for it really exemplified accurately who they were in a concise manner--like Christ.

I will reiterate my former point: the Scriptures are used for corroboration, not proof. Proof can be found without a necessity for corroboration (i.e. a solid, irrefutable proof). Relevantly, the truths of Christianity can be found and proved by means outside the Bible, for instance, through science, logic, mathematics, and supernatural experience. This includes the triune nature of God. It is shown in nature that creatures are birthed from the same kind of creature. If God, in a sense, birthed humans into creation, we can reason that we are like Him (i.e. created in His image). This is reflected in the human triune nature: mind, body, and soul.

Again, I am not saying we throw out the Bible. And I am glad you don't make that accusation as many others have.

Paul often quotes Scripture for corroboration, indeed, but even in that event, he takes some passages horribly out of their originally understood context [http://www.patheos.com...]. It can be reasoned that He was explaining the Spirit who inspired these passages, rather than using the passages as proof of His point (unless of course he is saying something along the lines of "Jesus was God's plan all along. The Good News is not a Plan B, but Plan A.")

Jesus actually DID have contemporaries write about Him--King Herod and Pontius Pilate sent a series of letters between one another specifically about Jesus' trial [http://www.orthodox.cn...].

And there are multiple testimonies of individuals encountering the post-incarnate Christ and coming to faith by that means, without ever having heard from the Bible. Muslims in particular have testified of coming to Christ (for the faith is very open to visions and dreams and such) [http://www.cbn.com...]. Wiccans, New-Agers, and even Satanists turn to Christ because of supernatural encounters with Jesus.

Personally, I really enjoy hear Satanist testimonies, because often they decide to get serious about Satanism and find out that all Satan wants to do is kill, steal, and destroy them (as shown in John 10:10). On his deathbed, Anton Lavey, the founder of the church of Satan and author of the Satanic Bible, began screaming "What have I done?! What have I done?!" These are incredible testimonies, but I'm beginning to trail off. Excuse me if anything is too far off-topic.

Let me put forth another point: The Bible itself expresses that it is unnecessary or that knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit all the time as opposed to the Bible.

"Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other." 1 Thessalonians 4:9

"'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.'" Hebrews 8:10-11, Jeremiah 31:33-34

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Corinthians 3:1-6

"Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you." 1 Thessalonians 5:1

"Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained." Philippians 3:15-16

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him." 1 John 2:27

"It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." John 6:45

"For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaia has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them." 2 Corinthians 9:1-2

There are more verses than these, but I thought I would keep my quotations rather brief.

Simply answered, the dilemma of a disagreement of doctrine is resolved in Jesus, who is the manifestation of the Good News. As Tyler Johnson puts it, "Jesus is perfect theology." And this is a Living God--one with whom we can interact, question, and argue (although we may not win ;)). I would say then, that the Bible is supplementary to faith, but not necessary. How were heresies refuted in the Church's early stages? John refuted the Gnostics with reason of the Good News, not Scripture:

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." 1 John 4:2-3

Earlier I did provide testimonies of faith that were without the Bible, thus supporting the claim that the Bible is not necessary to the Christian faith.
Thaumaturgy

Con

As to Pro’s statement about our agreement on the meaning of Christianity, I must remind Pro that indeed we agreed to the meaning of Christianity in Round 1 with the definition I proposed and to which Pro agreed:

Christianity: the monotheistic religion that derived from the idea that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in the Jewish tradition and the "Old Testament". Jesus is considered by Christians to be the Son of God but also the Savior of mankind who atones man to God through his sacrifice.

While I agree that Christians endeavor to be Christ-like that is not the limit of the definition, nor is it integral to the definition proposed in Round 1 and to which Pro agreed.

Pro then points out that that “the truths of Christianity can be found and proved by means outside the bible” I must request significant proof that this occurs. It is one thing to point to the inspiration of the original “authors” of the faith (such as Paul) are what provides the basis for the faith, but authorship of the faith vs the future propogation of the faith are two quite different things. There are many who have claimed supernatural inspiration, but I am unaware of anyone completely “uncontaminated” by prior knowledge provided by the bible to have sui generis come up with the idea that salvation was achieved through the acceptance of the sacrifice of a man who lived in 1st century Palestine, that he was part of a Triune Godhead and that he corresponded to what is later learned to be the Messiah originally mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible.

If pro can provide evidence that this has occurred, and further that it is so common as to support the contention that the Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith that would be a key point.

I must also point out that the concept of the Triune God was such that in the 16th century Erasmus was unable to find it in the selection of original Greek manuscripts at his disposal and he had to request the Church to find and provide him with this, and indeed it is not included in the first 2 editions of the Textus Receptus. How does one derive the Triune nature of God if one of the early translations based on extant manuscripts fail to include this key point?

Further any “miracles” Pro would like to introduce may point to a “god” of some sort but are not necessarily dispositive only of the Judeo Christian God, Yahweh, nor is it necessarily indicative of the specifics of Christian Soteriology which differentiates Christianity fundamentally from all other religions. Nearly every religion has its share of miracle stories and even inspiration stories.

In regards to the contemporary writings about Jesus, Pro cites the letters between Herod and Pilate. My understanding is that these are only available from a manuscript dated sometime in the 7th century so I have difficulty in accepting that these are necessarily real. However I am open to Pro’s provision of actual evidence of the truth of these letters.

As for conversion without any input from the Bible that is hard to establish. For a Muslim, of course, it is irrational to assume they are unfamiliar with the Bible since Islam, like Christianity and Judaism all share a common Abrahamic root [1]. Remember, Muslims themselves consider themselves as children descended from Abraham. The Ka’aba in Mecca is a testimony to this connection. Indeed many muslims revere Jesus as a prophet (albeit not the Messiah), Jesus is mentioned in the Quran [1,2], so it is hardly reasonable to point to a muslim converting as evidence that prior knowledge of Scriptures is lacking.

The idea of “spiritual” encounters with Jesus does not obviate the prior knowledge of Jesus and the Bible.

Further Pro quotes various books of both the Old and New Testaments to point out the covenant between God and his people and for Christians to know who and what they are, which is reliance upon the Bible to provide evidence that the Bible is not necessary. This seem circular at best.

Pro then states:
“I would say then, that the Bible is supplementary to faith, but not necessary. “
This is in regards to faith not Christianity per se. Many people “feel” various aspects of faith, but in order for that faith to crystalize into the specifics of Christianity as outlined so far in all its details, especially the important soteriological aspects, it requires more than a mere feeling of “faith”.

Pro finally reiterates:
“Earlier I did provide testimonies of faith that were without the Bible, thus supporting the claim that the Bible is not necessary to the Christian faith.”

Unfortunately the only concrete example cited was one of various muslims coming to Christianity. But this is irrational as a point for the reasons explained above.

The key point would be if someone and in fact many people would without any sort of influence or foreknowledge of the Christ story and the writings that make up the Christian Canon, have independently arrived at the idea of a monotheistic religion predicated on the worship of Yahweh originally practiced by a group of people in the Middle East which had as a tradition a “messiah” who was realized in the form of a man who existed around the 1st century CE, who was the only way to God, who was part of a Triune god, whose sacrifice to Yahweh specifically atoned man to Yahweh and the acceptance of that specific act of sacrifice to atone man to Yahweh provided salvation. And further that that specific person (Jesus) rose from the dead and ascended to heaven to be reunited with Yahweh.

Considering that Jesus never said “Some concept of a guy like me in whatever form am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through a generalized belief in some concept of me in some form or another.” No, Jesus was rather specific on this point. Which is key to Christianity and links it directly back to the Bible.

If Pro can cite a preponderance of evidence of people thus “uncontaminated” by any form of prior exposure to Christianity yet came to the exact form of Christianity as outlined in the Bible it would help his cause.

SOURCES

  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
  2. http://www.islam101.com...
Debate Round No. 3
tapostol

Pro

The truths of Christianity were originally revealed OUTSIDE the Bible. Jesus didn't exist just in a book. People practiced spiritual gifts before Paul ever even thought about them. These real-life revelations are simply recorded in the Bible. To box them in by saying they are exclusively obtainable through the Bible attempts to limit the unlimitedness of God.

He is called the Living God for a reason. His ways and ministry did not end after John 21:25, which interestingly enough, says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." There is far more to Jesus, and consequently Christianity, than the Bible.

I believe the flourishing of the Church for 300 years without any canonized literature is ample proof that the Bible is not necessary to faith, although it can certainly help.

It seems to me that you disbelieve the possibility of divine intervention. The Holy Spirit Himself teaches us ALL things. That is even a biblical concept (John 14:26, 1 John 2:27). This is not a circular argument because I use the citations as corroboration, not mere proof. The reasons these words were written down is because they were experienced in real-life. The author(s) interacted with God firsthand. There is nothing, logically or biblically, that suggests that we cannot either. With the absence of the canonized Bible (the first of which contained more books than today's largely accepted Protestant revision) for 300 years, I believe it is appropriate to reason that the Bible is certainly beneficial and good (considering reasons for its canonization), but is not necessary.

Paul the Apostle is one example. Although he had an exposure to some extent, he was completely opposed to Christianity as he was introduced to it, without any sign of future change. His conversion happened in the middle of a road with Jesus saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? ... I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:4-5). He then proceeded to the city without consulting anyone--Christian of not.

The book of Acts is filled with accounts of conversion without the Bible, although concepts present in the Bible were preached.

The reason people can convert to Christianity without the Bible is because absolute Truth begins in the Person of Jesus. The Bible is not absolute truth--Jesus is. Interact with Him. The Bible does not need to be exalted to the sasme level of divinity as Jesus.
Thaumaturgy

Con


I must again reiterate the definitions which we agreed to in Round 1.


Bible: the normally accepted Old and New Testaments. While there are some books that not in all Christian sects' versions of the Bible, the common books will be considered for this debate without the requirement of apocrypha etc.


In this case I wish to focus on the Old Testament since that is crucial to the development of Christianity from its roots.


Pro states that “Jesus didn’t exist just in a book”, but clearly Jesus was an observant Jew who knew the Law and the Prophets. In fact Jesus explicitly states: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18)


This means that the Pentateuch and the words of the Prophets which make up much of what is called the Old Testament today were integral to who Jesus considered himself to be.


Further as to the works that established Christianity and the existence of the Church for a long period of time without a codified “New Testament” is to point out the very real need of an orthodoxy in the early Church. The early Church was, as Pro no doubt is aware, made up of various factions many of which were following different “non-canonical gospels”. It was the work of early Church “fathers” to determine if these were in keeping with the teachings of Christianity. Take for instance the “Gospel of Peter” which the Bishop Serapion initially allowed the congregation of Rhosus to continue to use until he realized upon reading it that it could lead to heretical ideals[1] (in this case Docetism [2])


This early fracturing of the faith was important enough that a centralized orthodoxy was deemed necessary and indeed many, many teachings and apocryphal writings were cast by the wayside in order to maintain a coherence of the faith that we ultimately have today.


As such I maintain two key points:


-Jesus saw himself as a part of the Judaic tradition in fulfillment of the laws and the works of the prophets which we know of today as part of the Old Testament and would have, at that time, been extant teachings in the form of the Pentateuch and teachings of the prophets


-Early Christianity was crystallized and codified through a long effort of canonization of teachings which ultimately resulted in the New Testament.


As such the Bible as we defined earlier is the “instruction manual” and the “meets and bounds” of the faith. What people do with what they gain from this beyond the pages of the Bible is not under debate here and it would be irrational to think people do not feel aspects of their faith outside of the Bible. Just that the Bible establishes the course of the faith’s development and the orthodoxy that lays at the heart of its practice.



  1. Ehrman, B., Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2005

  2. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. vi. 12, treating of Serapion, bishop of Antioch about A.D. 190 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...)

Debate Round No. 4
tapostol

Pro

It seems as if Con and I are largely on the same page, except that I am vying for a larger focus on the Person of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, rather than things written about them. Con's last argument concedes my point that the Bible is indeed good and beneficial, but it seems as if he doesn't quite understand the nature of the Law as it pertains to Jesus.

Let me quote a few more verses to help clarify. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, not by any belief about the Bible or attempt to uphold "the Law and the Prophets" (although I would certainly concede that it is wise and even logical to view the Bible as good and beneficial):

"For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation." Romans 4:14-15

"What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:17-26 (key verse: 25)

"He made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations, so that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, resulting in peace. He did this so that He might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross and put the hostility to death by it. When the Messiah came, He proclaimed the good news of peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near." Ephesians 2:15-17

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:4-6

Let me also clarify that "unnecessary" is not synonymous with "useless" or "evil."
Thaumaturgy

Con

At no point have I made any points against the beneficial nature of the Bible or its utility to the faith. That has never been in contention in this debate. The original contention against which I am debating is the Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith. I am certain there are people who feel many things outside of and beyond the pages of the Bible, but all leverage the teachings in the Bible as the core of their faith. It is our single unique connection to what the basis of the Christian faith is predicated on.

Pro notes a point that I have repeatedly acquiesced that faith in Christ is necessary for Christian salvation (the “Christian Soteriology” that I have mentioned in almost every round so far). But my point is that this concept is grounded in the Bible. Jesus himself relies on the teachings in the books and writings that we now know of as the Old Testament and even sees himself as an extension of that and to that end the Bible becomes crucial to the faith.

Repeatedly, to make his point, Pro cites passages from the Bible to support his contentions. Which is, in and of itself, very much at the heart of my argument. What Pro (and almost every other current extant Christian) knows about Christianity comes from the Bible.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tapostol 4 years ago
tapostol
"Unnecessary" is not synonymous with "useless," "wrong," or "unreliable."
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
Pro in order for you to have been able to provide the resources to determine whether or not the Bible is necessary for Christian faith you would ave had to utilize scripture to figure this out.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
tapostolThaumaturgyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The "counter bombs" currently outweigh the actual bombs. There are a total of 10 points worth of "vote bombs" from 2 people that did not provide any RFD, while there is 14 points from "counter vote bombs." I am applying 4 points to balance it out at 14 - 14 for bombs vs counter bombs. At least until some RFDs are provided. If any of the bomber change their vote or add RFDs, please PM me to correct this. Thank you.
Vote Placed by Cobo 4 years ago
Cobo
tapostolThaumaturgyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: So many votebombs.....
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
tapostolThaumaturgyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate seemed to go off the rails here and there. The issues was the necessity of the Bible. Pro's sole argument rested on the Bible not existing in the time of the Bible, but he failed to convince me that the Apostles serve as examples rather than exceptions. After all, they had direct access to Jesus. Con did make good point about false religions emerging from non-biblical "spiritual inspirations."
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
tapostolThaumaturgyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to prove that the Bible was neccesary to the development of the Christian faith, and so won the round.
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 4 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
tapostolThaumaturgyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb, at least until RFD is given.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 4 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
tapostolThaumaturgyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the more convincing argument
Vote Placed by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
tapostolThaumaturgyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This goes without any reason.